On Fre, 2003-09-05 at 19:53, Joey Harrison wrote: > My > preference would be to have the most recent packages, > but also somewhat tested, so should I use testing?
I'v run stable, testing and unstable. In you case, I would start with stable. Most software in Linux is so mature these days that it doesn't really matter if it's all that recent for the most part. Desktop environments (Gnome, KDE) are an exception, but you can get good (unofficial) backports to stable at http://www.apt-get.org You should also consider Libranet, it's a commercial distro based on Debian, with a friendlier installer and more recent packages than stable. Avoid testing!! Testing is for testing /the distribution/ and is quite f****d most of the time, as packages trickle in from unstable in a quite random manner. E.g., Gnome in testing is severely broekn, since some packages of 2.2 are in testing, but other important packages are helb ub by bugs. Unstable is ok, it's not so much the packages that are unstable, but the package list changes frequently. It has mostly very recent packages that are considered stable by upstream. However, be prepared that it does impose quite much qork on the admin: config files have to be updated frequently, since every time new package version come in. Also, you should have a working bootdisk and be able to fix a system you can't boot or log into by normal means. It happens very seldom, but it may. You can avoid that by reading the debian-devel mailing list /before/ you do an "apt-get update; update upgrade". Problems are reported there very quickly. Have fun -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
